Matter of Hefley v Favors
2013 NY Slip Op 03481 [106 AD3d 909]
May 15, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 26, 2013


In the Matter of Leroy Hefley,Respondent,
v
Booker Tony Favors III, Appellant.

[*1]Robert Marinelli, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Booker TonyFavors III appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County(Lebwohl, J.), dated February 28, 2012, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding thathe had committed, inter alia, the family offense of disorderly conduct, directed him,among other things, to stay away from Leroy Hefley until and including February 24,2013.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the order of protection expired by its own terms on February 24, 2013, inlight of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from a finding that theappellant committed a family offense, the appeal has not been rendered academic (see e.g. Matter of Wallace vWallace, 45 AD3d 599 [2007]; Matter of DeSouza-Brown v Brown, 38 AD3d 888 [2007];Matter of Rochester vRochester, 26 AD3d 387, 388 [2006]; Matter of Kravitz v Kravitz, 18 AD3d 874 [2005]).

The Family Court's determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled togreat weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Pearlman vPearlman, 78 AD3d 711, 712 [2010]; Matter of Wallace v Wallace, 45 AD3d 599 [2007]; Matter of Phillips v Laland, 4AD3d 529 [2004]). The record supports the Family Court's finding, based on apreponderance of the credible evidence, that the appellant committed an act constitutingthe family offense of disorderly conduct, warranting the issuance of an order ofprotection (see Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 832; Penal Law §240.20 [1]; Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman, 78 AD3d at 712; Matter of Medranda vMondelli, 74 AD3d 972 [2010]).

The appellant's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reachedin light of our determination. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.